Ah, I see now I put this in my vote on the 2nd voting round. -- I also
see that I asked there why abandoned railways were mentioned since I
thought they had their own key and wern't using "historic", is this an
intentional change? Is the re-tagging of abandoned railways proposed here?
On 04.12.22 10:53, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I could swear I had written this as a public message long ago but I
cannot find it now. Sorry, then, for the last-minute interruption. I had
an issue with the proposal, namely the wording:
"This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical
meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community."
This is asking for trouble. There is a delicate balance in OSM - you can
map what you want and you don't have to ask permission, but there are
limits. If you were to start mapping, say, individual flowers, then a
discussion would arise and it is quite possible that the community
decides that this is going too far and you will be asked to stop.
The same can happen with features that have a historical meaning. The
OSM community needs to at least have sufficient interest to let you do
your thing. Explicitly putting here, in writing, that the OSM community
may not interefere in someone's mapping of historic features would be a
first, and I can already see the discussions down the line where someone
goes over the top, another person complains, and the first person then
says "BUT THE WIKI SAYS I CAN DO IT!!!!"
I'm sure this is not the intention of this proposal - in fact I am
unsure what the intention of "... regardless of interest to the OSM
community" is. I think that bullet point should simply be dropped, as it
is either stating the obvious (map what you want) or inciting trouble
(ignore it when people complain).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
